That's what I'm saying. It's not that he tried to flip flop on the issue, it's that he lied about the media making it up. Then when they read him the quotes you can see him start to squirm his way out of it. I would have liked to see what went on after that though.daved said:No matter what your political affiliation, you have to admit...it's nice to see them squirm a bit for for a change...lol just the look on his face when they're reading him that quote...hahaha...priceless
I think anyone anywhere is more than entitled to their opinions, and the board is here to share them.daved said:
Also, please forgive me if I'm out of line. As a Canadian, I'm not sure I have the right to comment on the US political situation/president.
I've always heard the expression "If it has tits or tires, it'll give you trouble." I think a similar expression could apply to politicians....the majority of them aren't worth blowing up.daved said:We here in Canada are not without our political problems.
I would agree if this was a broader question like, "Why did you guys have no bid contracts in the 87 billion war funding budget?" There are arguements that could be made to justify that. Sometimes it's the only practical way to do things on the quick. But if you do, you put in controls and audit capability, etc. What is the scope and structure of the contract? Is there anybody watching the store to make sure that only those items that MUST be done expeditiously are included and the rest are left for bidding? That topic could be discussed intelligently for hours and in the course of it, much could be learned. He may make the case for it to reasonable satisfaction or you may discover it's FULL of problems. That scope of a question like that requires in depth review before accurate justification or accusations can be made, unless they refuse to discuss it in depth. Then you're left to your own conclusions as to why. You have to give the opportunity before to judge. Kerry has taken the opportunity to answer his accusers, you're just not likely to have access to that answer on Fox.spicersh said:Surely someone in politics wouldn't flip flop like that....right Mr. Kerry? Perhaps we could dig a little deeper into it to find out Mr. Rumsfeld's well thought out and insightful reasons for what he said at the time.
In the linked case, that wasn't a soundbyte. It was a straightforward question, was very simple, limited scope, and didn't require much discussion, only a straightforward answer because it was so simple. Some items are like that and are one sentence answers. He was asked the straight question and his answer was a lie, proven with his own words. For the life of me, I can't see anything left to discuss, but would be willing to listen. Watch the tape again if you don't see that difference.spicersh said:Just pointing out that it happens on both sides of the fence. If all we're going to look at is the soundbyte coverage that Dad has so pointedly expressed his distaste for, then why do we get that "well thought out reasons for his actions" spiel when we criticize Kerry for his voting record?
Well just in case I was not clear, I already said that in this case I wouldn't try to nor would I want to defend Rumsfeld. He got caught with his own words. The question then is did he intentionally lie about it or did he forget what he said? Could be one or the other, could be a mixture of both. I wouldn't say that he is above lying about it, I'm just saying that the video may not be the whole story. Like I said, if someone asks you if you said something, never say never unless you are damn sure of it.Dad said:C'mon Scott, you're arguing for arguement's sake here. I know you're better than that. :thumb: You're trying to pull a "Fox News" on us.
I thought it was the 2nd one that got him. The first one didn't really prove anything one way or another. I thought about mentioning that, but I'm sure that that would just be reaching.AudioSolstice said:i wanted to point out that on the 2nd quote when it said the Iraq was one of the more Imediate threats. That does not nessecarily mean an imeditate threat it means if there was a threat they would be in the front of it being the country with the most probability. For rummsfield to really start squirming it would have had to have said most instead of more.Which in turn means that Iraq compared to the other countries of the world poses more of a threat to us.
its was humorous to see him squirm though
With the multitude of speeches and interviews on the topic and the consistant theme of ******* danger (select the word of your choice that means "imminent", don't want to mis-quote, after all), any attempt to deny that charge can be nothing but an attempt at deceit. He can't pretend that wasn't the theme, if not the exact words used. That tells me a lot about their whole program and even discounts any latitude I might have given his integrity when he claimed they didn't lie or at least stretch the truth going in. I start to wonder if any of that crew know how to tell the truth. Maybe that was at the core of Paul O'Neill's falling out of favor. I don't agree with all of his opinions, but don't think he's dishonest. Probably resulted in not being a team player.spicersh said:Well just in case I was not clear, I already said that in this case I wouldn't try to nor would I want to defend Rumsfeld. He got caught with his own words. The question then is did he intentionally lie about it or did he forget what he said? Could be one or the other, could be a mixture of both. I wouldn't say that he is above lying about it, I'm just saying that the video may not be the whole story. Like I said, if someone asks you if you said something, never say never unless you are damn sure of it.
I don't know. I'm looking for better than that.:thumb:spicersh said:I really wasn't trying to start an argument over this. Just saying that both sides don't always tell the truth. Both sides are full of liars, ya just gotta pick which ones lie in your favor most often.
Yeah, we can manufacture it in China and India and sell it back to you at huge profits! What a great idea! Hey, you need a job?Dad said:Maybe what those guys suffer from is an allergic reaction to cameras and microphones, causing uncontrollable inability to tell the truth.
Microphonobic Cameratellietis. Scott, you might want to put the researchers on that one, cook up a quick pill. It might not be one of the blockbuster volume sellers but they can pay what it takes. They've got the money. During the trials, throw in a couple of the Fox News guys. It might work on editors too, broadening your market.
Spoken like a true free trader, Wall Street style.:thumb:spicersh said:Yeah, we can manufacture it in China and India and sell it back to you at huge profits! What a great idea! Hey, you need a job?
I was just taking a smart ass jab, intended in jest, based on our prior discussions.spicersh said:I forgot, when was it that pharma companies were required to give their products away? We've been through this discussion many many times. You just don't accept the facts of it, for which I am sorry but I'm unable to do anything about.
One or two of the jabs usually are taken in jest, however when I see them as often as you put them out there I start to take them more as barbed comments and even attacks with a very thin mask of a joke. Putting smilies next to it doesn't hide an attack for what it really is, IMO. If I've misread you then I apologize, as sarcasm/joking generally doesn't come across well over a keyboard.Dad said:I was just taking a smart ass jab, intended in jest, based on our prior discussions.
But, since you brought it up........ Noone I know of said they should and I would be the first to defend them to anyone who did say that. The one underlying question that has NEVER been answered with all of the discussions is the justification for a large industry netting a 20% profit when common, entirely acceptable large industry profits are as low as 2%. That in an industry where people's lives are in the balance and many can't afford access. Every time the discusssion starts, it gets sidetracked to research costs, overseas not paying their share, etc, etc. Those may all be issues of merit, I'm sure many are, but.....
The simple question is, is it morally appropriate for those profits to exist in light of the reality of the access problems with real lives in the balance? That question has NEVER been answered. If all of those other issues are givens at face value, no arguement, and they are all addressed tomorrow, and folks are still without service, is the 20% net profit appropriate? If they gave away drugs, as they often do, then that means that the payers are paying the other's cost PLUS the 20% margin, not necessarily willingly or without great hardship, and is that appropriate or fair to them?
We can do it all over again but tore it up pretty good the first go around. And I'm still not satisfied that the core question was ever answered. Is 20% industry average net profit appropriate or not, in light of the surrounding facts of access? The rest can be dealt with if it's determined there's a problem. If there isn't one, then nothing needs done.